Best pro-life argument I've seen

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope_Philomena
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hope_Philomena

Guest
I just wanted to share this talk by Stephanie Gray. It’s very rational and level-headed, and if you have an hour to spare I highly recommend. I’ve had troubles with the issue of abortion and this is by far the most convincing argument I’ve seen yet. I think I can safely say I’m pro-life after watching this talk (and after a lot of discernment)

 
How can anyone be anything other than pro-life. Discussion is redundant as the alternative is the willful destruction of Gods creation to suit a personal incompetence or judgement.

I almost roll my eyes in disgust every time someone mentions that it’s a debate really.

We are Gods creation and property. With no right to freely determine how to vandalise that from day one. Simple enough to comprehend, hardly takes a video or any other material for that matter.

Sorry for the cold response. But I’ve never been unclear on the matter. Abortion is a relationship of two where one person always leaves the scenario murdered.

Was never acceptable in any shape or form. Very basic moral standard imo.
 
Last edited:
Hi! Glad you are on the side of truth. Just curious, what were some of the specifics that caused serious discernment on the issue? Not criticizing, since you are in accordance with the teachings of the Church, but just genuinely curious. God Bless
 
A lot of people were raised with wrong ideas. For example, not everyone is Catholic. In the same way, not everyone is pro-life.
 
Miltiadem said:
Any who support ‘pro-life’ are in direct violation of Gods will to let the individual to decide for themselves if they will commit that sin or not.
Click to expand...
If you were walking down the street and saw one person trying to kill another, you would just keep walking because it is “Gods will to let the individual to decide for themselves if they will commit that sin or not?”
 
Miltiadem said:
There is no risk to the child’s soul regardless of if they come into this world or not
Click to expand...
Um, the child is already in this world at this point. Is the womb another dimension?
Miltiadem said:
I am pointing out the fallacy that any human can claim dominion over anothers body.
Click to expand...
Which would also mean dominion over the child’s body too, right? Why the double-standard?

Please, please, please don’t dodge these questions.
 
Last edited:
Miltiadem said:
You are equating literal violent murder to the destruction of a collection of cells incapable of existence free of the mother.
Click to expand...
They are both the intentional destruction of human life.
Miltiadem said:
In abortion there is no other ‘human’ involved. There is no cell mass capable of possessing free will that we as a society have an obligation to protect.
Click to expand...
You really should watch the video.
 
Miltiadem said:
it is not ‘in this world’ it is inside [and entirely dependent on] the mother who is in this world.
Click to expand...
A child that is just born is still dependent on their mother as a child that is in the womb and yet killing a child immediately upon birth is illegal.
 
But the “fetus” (AKA baby) will have a free will. Actually, it will have it around 7 years old. 1 year-olds don’t have a free will. That’s why we don’t lock a one-year-old up if they do something wrong. But killing them is tantamount to murder.

Also, we are getting quite close to being able to take the child out and keep it alive in a vat at any point once it attaches to the utero and develops a placenta. That will be able happen in the near future. Thus, the fetus will soon be able to exist outside of it’s mother. Granted, it will need loads of help to survive but so do coma patients. Just because the fetus needs it’s mother to survive does not make it any less a person.
 
Miltiadem said:
Failing to be fully formed enough to support its own life processes outside the mother body means it is not ‘in this world’ it is inside [and entirely dependent on] the mother who is in this world.
Click to expand...
Then I should assume you’re adamantly against 3rd trimester abortions? Right?
 
I didn’t actually, but that doesn’t change what I said. Viability does not change whether a person is a person. So you can’t go and say that is an argument for abortion.
 
Miltiadem said:
How about we say it this way. The mother has the right to induce labor whenever she sees fit.

Its up to the doctors and the child in question to survive.
Click to expand...
So you’re against the vast majority of 3rd trimester abortions? Which of course involve directly harming the pain-feeling child and not merely inducing labor?
 
Last edited:
Yes, people have free will. Your point? People are free to disobey the law if they choose, and others are free to establish laws which threaten penalties if disobeyed. Let’s not pretend that legislation is a greater affront to God than the destruction of innocent human life.
 
I’m not sure what this is supposed to say. The only reason that children out of the womb aren’t answerable to the law is because they don’t have a fully formed will. But neither do those people who have down-syndrome. Or those people in a coma (who can’t use their will). They are still human and entitled to basic human rights. As are children in the womb.
 
I haven’t watched the video yet, but here’s something I always try to establish before debating someone on the issue:

If the baby inside the uterus isn’t a person, then the pro-life position is one of restricting women’s rights at worst, yet at the same time protecting what will become a person. If the baby inside the uterus is a person, then abortion is nothing short of murder.

I have to make this position clear because most of these debates are over the internet, and with few exceptions, the person I’m debating speaks very profanely and sees no difference between abortion and masturbation (but they like to explain it in a more “colorful” way).
 
Last edited:
Miltiadem said:
Abortions as a modern medical procedure are different from simply inducing labor but that is only because it provides less risk to the mother.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute. At this point the child is viable, and you still think it’s ok to rip it apart? Why did you make all those arguments by appealing to viability then? I cannot keep up with the endless inconsistencies of the pro-abort argument.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top